DOCSLIB.ORG

Logic and Critical Thinking

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Logic and Critical Thinking Fall 2020 PHIL 1313.64304: Logic and Critical Thinking This course offers an introduction to some of the fundamentals of both informal and formal logic. To aid you, I have created powerpoints, instructional videos, additional exercises beyond those in the textbook, practice tests, etc.. I am also available through the day to answer emails. To begin: (1) read through the syllabus, (2) enter the assignment dates on your personal calendar, (3) familiarize yourself with the online course materials, (4) view the “Welcome” Powerpoint Contact me at: [email protected] if you have any questions. SYLLABUS: PHIL 1313 (ONLINE - FALL 2020) Instructor: Lawrence Pasternack, Ph.D. Email: [email protected] (email me with course content questions as they come up. Through much of the day, I usually can respond right away. Evening emails will usually receive a response the next morning.) ZOOM: if you need help with any course content, email me. Sometimes your issues can be addressed via email, but we can also meet via Zoom. I am usually free 11am-3pm MWF and 11am-2pm TR. If you want to meet, contact me early in the day or a day prior. Grader: Sarah Mutschelknaus, M.A. – [email protected] Course Canvas Web Site accessed via: canvas.okstate.edu Note: Canvas auto-grades the quizzes and some elements of the tests, the grader will be grading the exercises and tests based upon answer keys from Dr. Pasternack. Required Text • Moore and Parker, Critical Thinking, 12th Edition. ISBN 978-1259690877 OPTIONAL: “Connect Access Code for the 12th Edition” ISBN 978-1259845789 Recommended Resources There are numerous websites devoted to both informal and formal logic. Some will overlap with course content. You can google “list of fallacies,” or look for videos on argument diagraming, truth tables, etc.. Many will be helpful, but feel free to ask me if you’re not sure about what you found. You will also find a list of suggested sites on our course website. Course Description This course provides you with the opportunity to discover and develop various techniques of critical thinking. You will be introduced to some of the basic elements of both informal and formal logic. Informal logic includes the identification of fallacies in arguments, rhetorical devices, and criteria for weighing the strength of arguments. Formal logic uses variables and operators to represent argument patterns, much in the same way that algebraic variables and operators represent numerical equations. Success in this course will depend upon your ability to learn and apply its principles and techniques. There is an old cliche that your brain is a muscle and must be exercised. This is an apt metaphor for this course. Through practice, you will develop greater ability to recognize and correct vague and ambiguous claims, see through rhetoric, avoid fallacies, and rigorously test arguments for validity. Remember through the course: exercises are crucial for skill development. This especially applies to the argument diagraming (Chapter 2), Rhetoric/Fallacy identification (Chapters 5-7), Formal Translation and Truth Tables (Chapter 10). 1 Online Issues and Requirements Software • Handouts and practice tests are in .pdf format. You will need a copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available online for free. Go to: http://www.adobe.com/products/reader/ • There is also a PowerPoint file for each chapter. In addition to MS PowerPoint, there are freeware powerpoint viewers. Go to the Microsoft Download Center and search for the “powerpoint viewer”: http://www.microsoft.com/Downloads/ • Videos will be available on YouTube. You probably already have it, but if you do not, you need the Adobe Flash Player: http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/ For help with internet and software issues, contact 405-744-HELP or email [email protected] Proctor No Proctors are needed. All work is completed online. Submission Box (Drop Box) The submission box will be used for submitting exercises. I would prefer that all submissions use MS Word, Word Perfect, or Adobe Acrobat (.doc, .docx, wpd, .pdf). If necessary, a .jpeg/.jpg/.tiff scan is acceptable as well. Quizzes and Tests • Quizzes and tests are taken online. For the most part, they will be true/false and multiple- choice. Email, Phone & Chat Policies Emails will typically be answered within 24 hours. If you need to speak with me, we can arrange a time to do so. 2 Schedule of Readings and Assignments (subject to revision) Recommended Weekly Routine 1. Read the chapter 2. View the PowerPoint and/or videos 3. Complete the textbook exercises listed below 4. Take the online quiz (and extra-credit work if listed) Note: TAKE THE CHAPTER QUIZ ONLY AFTER YOU COMPLETE THE PERTINENT READINGS, POWERPOINTS, AND SET OF TEXTBOOK EXERCISES. (***Chapters/Pagination follow Custom Edition Table of Contents***) PART ONE: ARGUMENT TYPES AND TERMINOLOGY Topic Recommended Textbook Exercises Graded Assignment Due 8/17-9/4 Chapter One (p. 1-10) Some Basics 1-1, 1-5, 1-6, 1-11 demo & cpt 1 quiz 9/4 9/5-9/11 Chapter Two Argument Form 2-1 to 2-5, 2-8 to 2-10, 2-15 to 2-18 cpt 2 quiz 9/11 Diagraming Exercise Ex.Cred.Exercise 9/11 9/12-9/18 Chapter Three Clarity 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-8, 3-9 cpt 3 quiz 9/18 Test #1 chapters 1-3 TEST #1 9/25 PART TWO: RHETORIC AND FALLACIES 9/26-10/2 Chapter Five Rhetoric 5-1, 5-4, 5-11, 5-20 to 5-22 cpt 5 quiz 10/2 10/3-10/9 Chapter Six Fallacies Go to page 188 (100 examples) cpt 6 quiz 10/9 10/10 - 16 Chapter Seven Fallacies Go to page 213 (125 examples) cpt 7 quiz 10/16 Rhet. & Fallacies Exercise Ex.Cred.Exercise #2 10/16 Test #2 chapters 5-7 TEST #2 10/23 PART THREE: FORMAL LOGIC 10/24-11/6 Cpt. Ten (up to p. 298) Translation 10-1, 10-3, 10-4, 10-10 Cpt 10 quiz #1 11/6 Translation Exercise Ex.Cred.Exercise #3 11/6 11/7-11/20 Chapter Ten (305-313) Truth Tables 10-9* 10-11* + more online Cpt 10 quiz #2 11/20 Truth Table Exercise Ex.Cred.Exercise #4 11/30 Test #3 Chapter 10 TEST #3 12/9 * complete exercises 10-9, 10-11 using both the long and short table methods. 3 GRADED ASSIGNMENTS Chapter Quizzes 100 points • The quizzes can be found online using the “Quiz” link towards the top of the screen. • First, there is demo quiz to make sure you become familiar with the Canvas system. • You will then have quizzes for chapters 1,2,3,5,6,7, and 10. • Note that there will be TWO quizzes for Chapter 10. • These quizzes are core comprehension quizzes for the chapter contents. With the exception of the demo quiz and the quiz for chapter one, you will only have one opportunity to take the quiz. However, you will have ample time (thirty minutes) to take it. Each should only take a few minutes. The demo quiz can be taken up to 3 times and the quiz for chapter one you can take up to 2 times. These extra chances are to make sure you get the hang of taking quizzes online. • You may use the textbook or notes while taking the quizzes. The demo quiz is based on this syllabus. • You can take quizzes early, but you must complete the quiz by 11:59pm on the day scheduled (see prior page). • Quizzes will not be available after the due date. Tests 300 points • There are three tests: Chapters 1-3, Chapters 5-7, Chapter 10. • Tests are worth 100 points each. Students are strongly encouraged to complete the practice tests available online through Canvas. The format of the actual tests will closely resemble the practice tests. Tests are to be taken on the date indicated on the previous page. You may choose the time best suited to your schedule. Tests are designed to be completed within one hour. Total: 400 points Grading Scale (for final grades): A=400-360, B=359-320, C=319-280, D=279-240, F=0-239 4 EXTRA CREDIT ASSIGNMENTS Self-Assessment Exercises 20 points total • There are four extra-credit exercises, which can be found on Canvas in the course CONTENTS section under the header “Graded Course Exercises.” Each of the four exercises is worth 5 points. • See the “Schedule of Readings and Assignments” for their deadlines. • The purpose of these exercises is self-assessment, which in turn can help motivate you to develop your skills prior to the tests. Your grade will be based upon your completion of that assessment rather than how many questions you got right or wrong. • Exercise #1 is related to argument diagraming in chapter 2. Exercise #2 is related to fallacy and rhetoric identification in chapters 5-7. Exercises #3 and #4 are related to formal logic in chapter 10. Many students wait until too late before starting chapter 10 and just don’t give themselves enough time to learn its contents. You should start this chapter as soon as possible and spend as much time as you can with it, especially practicing the long and short table methods. • Do not confuse these exercises with the exercises in the textbook. Textbook exercises are important for your skill development, but textbook exercises do not have to be submitted. • INSTRUCTIONS: (a) view the instructions and questions (b) answer the questions (be sure to use a file type you can upload) (c) THEN, open the answer key and check your answers (d) write up a self-assessment, identifying which questions you got right and wrong, where your strengths and weaknesses are, and what you need to review before the test (see sample below).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Argumentation and Fallacies in Creationist Writings Against Evolutionary Theory Petteri Nieminen1,2* and Anne-Mari Mustonen1
    Nieminen and Mustonen Evolution: Education and Outreach 2014, 7:11 http://www.evolution-outreach.com/content/7/1/11 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Argumentation and fallacies in creationist writings against evolutionary theory Petteri Nieminen1,2* and Anne-Mari Mustonen1 Abstract Background: The creationist–evolutionist conflict is perhaps the most significant example of a debate about a well-supported scientific theory not readily accepted by the public. Methods: We analyzed creationist texts according to type (young earth creationism, old earth creationism or intelligent design) and context (with or without discussion of “scientific” data). Results: The analysis revealed numerous fallacies including the direct ad hominem—portraying evolutionists as racists, unreliable or gullible—and the indirect ad hominem, where evolutionists are accused of breaking the rules of debate that they themselves have dictated. Poisoning the well fallacy stated that evolutionists would not consider supernatural explanations in any situation due to their pre-existing refusal of theism. Appeals to consequences and guilt by association linked evolutionary theory to atrocities, and slippery slopes to abortion, euthanasia and genocide. False dilemmas, hasty generalizations and straw man fallacies were also common. The prevalence of these fallacies was equal in young earth creationism and intelligent design/old earth creationism. The direct and indirect ad hominem were also prevalent in pro-evolutionary texts. Conclusions: While the fallacious arguments are irrelevant when discussing evolutionary theory from the scientific point of view, they can be effective for the reception of creationist claims, especially if the audience has biases. Thus, the recognition of these fallacies and their dismissal as irrelevant should be accompanied by attempts to avoid counter-fallacies and by the recognition of the context, in which the fallacies are presented.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Reasoning Mistakes
    Common Fallacies (mistakes of reasoning) The fallacy fallacy • There is danger even in the study of fallacies. This study involves identifying certain patterns of reasoning as fallacies. Each pattern has a name. E.g. an argument that attacks a person is ad hominem. But ad hominem arguments are not always fallacies! • Rejecting an argument as a (named) fallacy, based on its pattern alone, is a fallacy that we might call the fallacy fallacy. • In general, an ad hominem is only legitimate when attacking an argument from authority. • But not all such attacks on authority are legitimate. They can be made on irrelevant grounds. Irrelevant ad hominem E.g. Einstein’s physics was attacked on the basis of Einstein being Jewish. Thomas Powers, Heisenberg’s War, p. 41 Fallacy? • Alliance leader Stockwell Day argues that Canada should increase its military expenditure now, by at least 20%, in order to continue to meet our NATO obligations five years from now. But Day is a fundamentalist who thinks the universe is only 6,000 years old! Clearly his view can be dismissed. • Mr. Wilson, in his letter of January 16, argues that it would be counter-productive to yield to the demands of the hostage takers. He does not, I take it, have a son or daughter among the hostages. As such a parent, I am repelled by his callous attitude. My daughter could well be the next innocent victim of these terrorists, but Wilson apparently doesn’t give a damn about this. 1. Comment on the following ad hominem (to the person) arguments, explaining why they are, or are not, reasonable.
    [Show full text]
  • Explicit Examples of Logical Fallacies in Love Is a Fallacy by Max Shulman Foundations – Part of the Easy Peasy All-In-One Homeschool
    Explicit examples of logical fallacies in Love is a Fallacy by Max Shulman Foundations – Part of the Easy Peasy All-in-One Homeschool A dicto simpliciter ("an argument based on an unqualified generalization") - the example given in the story is: Exercise is good. Therefore everybody should exercise. Hasty generalization (or "fallacy of insufficient sample") - example given in the story is “You can speak French, I can't speak French, Petey Burch can't speak French. I must therefore conclude that nobody at the University of Minnesota can speak French.” If most of the people the author (Dobie Gillis) knows cannot speak French he concludes that no one at the college can speak French. OR "My dear," I said, favoring her with a smile, "we have now spent five evenings together. We have gotten along, splendidly. It is clear that we are well matched." Post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after it, therefore because of it", or "confusing coincidental relationships with cause") - from the story: “Let's not take Bill on our picnic. Every time we take him out with us, it rains.” Contradictory Premises ("self-contradiction") - from the story: I do not see the contradictory premise in this story. The main contradiction would be that the author (Dobie Gillis) begins the story believing that love is logical and can be won through logic. However, the end of the story proves that love is not logical and Dobie’s original belief was a fallacy. Ad Misericordiam ("appeal to pity") - example given in the story: "A man applies for a job. When the boss asks him what his qualifications are, he replies the he has wife and six children at home, the wife is a helpless cripple, the children have nothing to eat, no clothes to wear, no shoes on their feet, there are no beds in the house, no coal in the cellar, and winter is coming." OR “Polly, I love you.
    [Show full text]
  • Alabama State University Department of Languages and Literatures
    ALABAMA STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGES AND LITERATURES COURSE SYLLABUS PHILOSOPHY 201 LOGICAL REASONING (PHL 201) (Revised 10/20/04 – Dr. Daniel Keller.) I. Faculty Listing: PHL 201: Logical Reasoning (3 credit hours) II. Description: To satisfactorily complete the course, a student must earn a grade of “C.” The course is designed to help students assess information and arguments and to improve their ability to reason in a clear and logical way. The course concentrates specifically on helping students learn some of the various uses of languages, understand how different kinds of inferences are drawn, and learn to recognize fallacies of ambiguity, presumption, and relevance. III. Purpose: Many students do not reason soundly and do not distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning. Hence, the aim of this course is to give students experience in learning to recognize and evaluate arguments; it also aims at teaching them to construct arguments that are reasonable and defensible. It is designed as a basic course to improve the reasoning skills of students. After completing this course successfully, students should show improvements in reading comprehension, writing, and test- taking skills. IV. Course Objectives: 1. Comprehend concepts 1-9 on the attached list. a) Define each concept b) Identify the meaning of each concept as it applies to logic. 2. Comprehend how these concepts function in logical reasoning. a) Given examples from the text of each concept, correctly identify the concept. b) Given new examples of each concept, correctly identify the concept. 3. Comprehend concepts 10-16 on the attached list. a) Define the concepts b) Identify the meaning of the concept as it applies to logic.
    [Show full text]
  • Should Climate Scientists Fly? a Case Study of Arguments at the System Level Jean Goodwin
    Document generated on 09/26/2021 2:33 a.m. Informal Logic Should Climate Scientists Fly? A Case Study of Arguments at the System Level Jean Goodwin Volume 40, Number 2, 2020 Article abstract I inquire into argument at the system level, exploring the controversy over URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1070883ar whether climate scientists should fly. I document participants’ knowledge of a DOI: https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v40i2.6327 skeptical argument that because scientists fly, they cannot testify credibly about the climate emergency. I show how this argument has been managed by See table of contents pro-climate action arguers, and how some climate scientists have developed parallel reasoning, articulating a sophisticated case why they will be more effective in the controversy if they fly less. Finally, I review some strategies Publisher(s) arguers deploy to use the arguments of others against them. I argue that only by attending to argument-making at the system level can we understand how Informal Logic arguers come to know the resources for argument available in a controversy and to think strategically about how to use them. I call for more work on ISSN argument at the system level. 0824-2577 (print) 2293-734X (digital) Explore this journal Cite this article Goodwin, J. (2020). Should Climate Scientists Fly? A Case Study of Arguments at the System Level. Informal Logic, 40(2), 157–203. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v40i2.6327 Copyright (c), 2020 Jean Goodwin This document is protected by copyright law. Use of the services of Érudit (including reproduction) is subject to its terms and conditions, which can be viewed online.
    [Show full text]
  • TOOLKIT Exchanges of Practices
    “Exchange of learning and teaching strategies: media literacy in adult education” Erasmus+ Strategic Partnerships for adult education (2016-2018) Project number: 2016-1-FR01-KA204-024220 TOOLKIT Exchanges of Practices This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use, which may be made of the information contained therein. Content Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………….3 “Media bias, fallacies and social representations definitions” workshop…………….4 Social representation……………………………………………………………………………7 “Recognizing Fallacies” workshop…………………………………………………………..9 “Recognizing Appeals to Emotion” workshop……………………………………………21 ”Text analysis” workshop………………………………………………………………….....25 Text for analysis………………………………………………………………………………...30 Critical Thinking workshop "The Logical Fallacies of Nationalism"………………….33 Workshop on writing: “Traditional and inverted pyramids”……………………………36 Deconstructing image………………………………………………………………………....40 Project poster…………………………………………………………………………………...44 Introduction "Exchange of learning and teaching strategies: media literacy in adult education" is an Erasmus+ Strategic Partnerships project for six partners from France, Estonia, Italy, Malta, Spain and Sweden. The coordinator of this project is MITRA FRANCE non-governmental organization from France. The project is funded by the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Commission. It seeks to develop initiatives addressing spheres of adult education, gathering and exchanges of experience and best practices in media literacy. This initiative contributes to strengthening media literacy as a mean of countering online and ordinary radicalisation and stigmatisation. As one of the results of this partnership the consortium has compiled a Toolkit with several good practices exchanged and tested during this project. This Toolkit is designed for adult educators, trainers and support staff who are interested in using media literacy in their daily work.
    [Show full text]
  • Christ-Centered Critical Thinking Lesson 7: Logical Fallacies
    Christ-Centered Critical Thinking Lesson 7: Logical Fallacies 1 Learning Outcomes In this lesson we will: 1.Define logical fallacy using the SEE-I. 2.Understand and apply the concept of relevance. 3.Define, understand, and recognize fallacies of relevance. 4.Define, understand, and recognize fallacies of insufficient evidence. 2 What is a logical fallacy? Complete the SEE-I. S = A logical fallacy is a mistake in reasoning. E = E = I = 3 http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-o9VE5tseuFk/T5FSHiJnu7I/AAAAAAAABIY/Ws7iCn-wJNU/s1600/Logical+Fallacy.JPG The Concept of Relevance The concept of relevance: a statement for or against another statement. A statement is relevant to a claim (i.e. another statement or premise) if it provides some reason or evidence for thinking the claim is either true of false. Three ways a statement can be relevant: 1. A statement is positively relevant to a claim if it counts in favor of the claim. 2. A statement is negatively relevant to a claim if it counts against the claim. 3. A statement is logically irrelevant to a claim if it counts neither for or against the claim. Two observations concerning the concept of relevance. 1. Whether a statement is relevant to a claim usually depends on the context in which the statement is made. 2. A statement can be relevant to a claim even if the claim is false. 5 Fallacies of Relevance • Personal attack or ad hominem • Scare tactic • Appeal to pity • Bandwagon argument • Strawman • Red herring • Equivocation http://www.professordarnell.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/fallacies.jpg • Begging the question 6 When a person rejects another person’s argument or claim by attacking the person rather than the argument of claim he or she commits an ad hominem fallacy or personal attack.
    [Show full text]
  • Breaking Down the Invisible Wall of Informal Fallacies in Online
    Breaking Down the Invisible Wall of Informal Fallacies in Online Discussions Saumya Yashmohini Sahai Oana Balalau The Ohio State University, USA Inria, Institut Polytechnique de Paris, France [email protected] [email protected] Roxana Horincar Thales Research & Technology, France [email protected] Abstract more appropriate. Fallacies are prevalent in public discourse. For example, The New York Times la- People debate on a variety of topics on online beled the tweets of Donald Trump between 2015 platforms such as Reddit, or Facebook. De- bates can be lengthy, with users exchanging and 2020 and found thousands of insults addressed a wealth of information and opinions. How- to his adversaries. If made in an argument, an in- ever, conversations do not always go smoothly, sult is an ad hominem fallacy: an attack on the and users sometimes engage in unsound argu- opponent rather than on their argument. In pri- mentation techniques to prove a claim. These vate conversations, other types of fallacies might techniques are called fallacies. Fallacies are be more prevalent, for example, appeal to tradition persuasive arguments that provide insufficient or appeal to nature. Appeal to tradition dismisses or incorrect evidence to support the claim. In calls to improve gender equality by stating that this paper, we study the most frequent falla- cies on Reddit, and we present them using “women have always occupied this place in soci- the pragma-dialectical theory of argumenta- ety”. Appeal to nature is often used to ignore calls tion. We construct a new annotated dataset of to be inclusive of the LGBTQ+ community by stat- fallacies, using user comments containing fal- ing “gender is binary”.
    [Show full text]
  • Master List of Logical Fallacies
    Master List of Logical Fallacies Fallacies are fake or deceptive arguments, arguments that prove nothing. Fallacies often seem superficially sound, and far too often have immense persuasive power, even after being clearly exposed as false. Fallacies are not always deliberate, but a good scholar’s purpose is always to identify and unmask fallacies in arguments. Ad Hominem Argument: Also, "personal attack," "poisoning the well." The fallacy of attempting to refute an argument by attacking the opposition’s personal character or reputation, using a corrupted negative argument from ethos. E.g., "He's so evil that you can't believe anything he says." See also Guilt by Association. Also applies to cases where valid opposing evidence and arguments are brushed aside without comment or consideration, as simply not worth arguing about. Appeal to Closure. The contemporary fallacy that an argument, standpoint, action or conclusion must be accepted, no matter how questionable, or else the point will remain unsettled and those affected will be denied "closure." This refuses to recognize the truth that some points will indeed remain unsettled, perhaps forever. (E.g., "Society would be protected, crime would be deterred and justice served if we sentence you to life without parole, but we need to execute you in order to provide some sense of closure.") (See also "Argument from Ignorance," "Argument from Consequences.") Appeal to Heaven: (also Deus Vult, Gott mit Uns, Manifest Destiny, the Special Covenant). An extremely dangerous fallacy (a deluded argument from ethos) of asserting that God (or a higher power) has ordered, supports or approves one's own standpoint or actions so no further justification is required and no serious challenge is possible.
    [Show full text]
  • <I>Ad Hominem</I>
    University of South Florida Scholar Commons Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 11-3-2016 Instattack: Instagram and Visual Ad Hominem Political Arguments Sophia Evangeline Gourgiotis University of South Florida, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd Part of the Other Communication Commons, and the Rhetoric Commons Scholar Commons Citation Gourgiotis, Sophia Evangeline, "Instattack: Instagram and Visual Ad Hominem Political Arguments" (2016). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/6508 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Instattack: Instagram and Visual Ad Hominem Political Arguments by Sophia E. Gourgiotis A thesis submitted in parital fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Arts with a concentration of Rhetoric and Composition Department of English College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Meredith Johnson, Ph.D. Elizabeth Metzger, Ph.D. Joseph Moxley, Ph.D. Date of Approval: October 27, 2016 Keywords: Presidential Rhetoric, Social Networking Sites, Visual Rhetoric, Ethos Copyright © 2016, Sophia E. Gourgiotis Dedication For my Dad, whose unwavering strength continuously inspires, who taught me that happiness is life’s most important purpose and that love has no boundaries. This thesis was written for and because of you. I love and miss you. Acknowledgments I would like to thank my committee for their thoughtful feedback, encouragement, and dedication throughout the duration of this project.
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Thinking – Moore / Parker Brooke Noel Moore
    More than any other textbook, Moore and Parker’s Critical Thinking – Moore / Parker Moore Brooke Noel Moore Richard Parker Highlights of the Ninth Edition Ù Hundreds of updated, revised, and broadened examples and anecdotes Ù Nearly 1,500 exercises for students to practice critical thinking skills with answers to Critical Thinking Ù Additional emphasis on critical analysis of visuals Critical Thinking 9th edition Ù Expanded coverage of causal reasoning MD DALIM #967097 6/11/08 reasoning Ù Extended and revised treatment of inductive reasoning Visit the Online Learning Center at www.mhhe.com/mooreparker9 for a wealth CYAN MAG YELO BLK 9th edition ISBN-13: 978-0-07-338667-6 ISBN-10: 0-07-338667-7 Revised Pages Ninth Edition Critical Thinking Brooke Noel Moore Richard Parker California State University, Chico Chapter 12 with Nina Rosenstand and Anita Silvers moo86677_fm_i-xxii.indd i 6/23/08 3:45:09 PM Revised Pages Published by McGraw-Hill, an imprint of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020. Copyright © 2009. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written consent of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., including, but not limited to, in any network or other electronic storage or transmission, or broadcast for distance learning. This book is printed on acid-free paper. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 VNH/VNH 0 9 8 ISBN: 978-0-07-338667-6 MHID: 0-07-338667-7 Editor in Chief: Michael Ryan Sponsoring Editor: Mark Georgiev Marketing Manager: Pamela Cooper Director of Development: Lisa Pinto Developmental Editor: Susan Gouijnstook Production Editor: Chanda Feldman Manuscript Editor: April Wells-Hayes Art Director: Jeanne Schreiber Design Manager: Laurie Entringer Photo Research: Brian Pecko Production Supervisor: Louis Swaim Composition: 10/12 Trump Medieval by Laserwords Printing: 45# Pub Matte Plus, R.
    [Show full text]
  • Logical Fallacies Summed up 1:23:20
    Logical Fallacies Summed Up Good arguments are claims based on reasoning that is Clear, Accurate, Relevant and Sufficient. Fallacies of Glittering Generality A vague, richly emotive term with no clear meaning. Unclear Evidence Equivocation A critical word/term in the argument is not used consistently. Questionable Premise The argument’s claim is based on an unproved premise or premises. (Premises are reasoning/evidence.) Includes outright lies, etc. Begging the Question The very thing the controversy is about is assumed true. Fallacies of Complex Question Loaded question (includes a questionable premise). Evidence of Circular Argument Unproved propositions/claims are used to prove each other. Questionable Either-Or fallacy “False Choice:” limited alternatives are presented, when they are Accuracy not mutually exclusive or more options should be considered. Strawmanship A position is misrepresented in order to better attack it. Accent Evidence is distorted by a change in emphasis, it is taken out of context, or significant factors are not mentioned, etc. Irrelevant Argument Argument presented that is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Non-Sequitur It does not follow (proof/reasoning irrelevant to the claim). Argument from Ignorance Arguing that a claim is true simply because it has not been proven false (or vice-versa). Attempts to switch the burden of proof. Ad Hominem Fallacy Attacking the arguer instead of the argument/reasoning. Attacking a personal characteristic (character, competence, etc.) of • Ad Hominem Abusive an opponent instead of refuting the opponent’s reasoning. Because of an arguer’s personal stake in the matter, or a position • Ad Hominem Circumstantial taken previously, the arguer is attacked instead of the reasoning.
    [Show full text]